The government is making it easier for “dark money” donors to go unnamed

[Chevy1]

With this Trump administration action, corporations and foreign entities have been granted legal access to funnel contributions through non-profits without disclosure of whom donated what or how much - not exactly "draining the swamp".

The IRS will no longer ask the NRA and other nonprofit groups to disclose donors.

"The United States government is making it easier for “dark money” donors to keep their contributions, well, in the dark. The Treasury Department on Monday said it planned to end requirements that certain tax-exempt organizations identify their financial contributors on their tax returns."

"The decision means groups such as the National Rifle Association, Planned Parenthood, and the AARP will no longer have to tell the IRS who’s giving them money."

"Since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010 that held political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, the IRS has been flooded with applications from groups seeking 501(c)(4) status. A number of well-known organizations have it, including the Democratic Socialists of America, Americans for Prosperity, and the NRA."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/17/17581384/irs-dark-money-nra-maria-butina-donors

 

[herdfan429]

Yeah those crazy ass planned parenthood donors can remain anonymous. This is media bias in reporting in action

 

[murox]

With this Trump administration action, corporations and foreign entities have been granted legal access to funnel contributions through non-profits without disclosure of whom donated what or how much - not exactly "draining the swamp".

The IRS will no longer ask the NRA and other nonprofit groups to disclose donors.

"The United States government is making it easier for “dark money” donors to keep their contributions, well, in the dark. The Treasury Department on Monday said it planned to end requirements that certain tax-exempt organizations identify their financial contributors on their tax returns."

"The decision means groups such as the National Rifle Association, Planned Parenthood, and the AARP will no longer have to tell the IRS who’s giving them money."

"Since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010 that held political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, the IRS has been flooded with applications from groups seeking 501(c)(4) status. A number of well-known organizations have it, including the Democratic Socialists of America, Americans for Prosperity, and the NRA."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/17/17581384/irs-dark-money-nra-maria-butina-donors

The left wants illegals to vote, busses systemic leeches to polling places every election day, scoffs at the idea of presenting a valid ID to cast a vote, but gets incensed at the thought of Americans spending money to promote candidates they like.

 

[Chevy1]

The left wants illegals to vote, busses systemic leeches to polling places every election day, scoffs at the idea of presenting a valid ID to cast a vote, but gets incensed at the thought of Americans spending money to promote candidates they like.

C'mon Rox.....what does one have to do with the other? Seriously, do you agree foreign govts should be able to funnel $$ to US elections through nonprofit corporations? Liberal non-profits could be used as easily as conservative non-profits.

 

[Bankerreturns]

C'mon Rox.....what does one have to do with the other? Seriously, do you agree foreign govts should be able to funnel $$ to US elections through nonprofit corporations? Liberal non-profits could be used as easily as conservative non-profits.

I can't answer for Rox, but Hillary was a huge fan of the practice.

 

[Chevy1]

Yeah those crazy ass planned parenthood donors can remain anonymous. This is media bias in reporting in action

The linked article cites liberal non-profits could be used in this way just as easily as conservative leaning non-profits.

This is upsetting to the hardcore right because the NRA is under investigation due to a huge spending increase during the 2016 Presidential election. Of course, this is in addition to an alleged Russian operative penetrating the NRA.

Bottom line - it's in this country's best interest to have donations transparent especially as it concerns donations from foreign govts. Why did this administration change the IRS rules to make that transparency go away?

 

[Bankerreturns]

Compare NRA political spending to that of Planned Parenthood and then get back to me.

 

[Chevy1]

I can't answer for Rox, but Hillary was a huge fan of the practice.

I have no problem with "locking her up" if she's guilty of abuses - and I believe she was. It's just that those who were impacted didn't make a stink about it.

However, I believe you're referring to the money made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign govts. We know about those because laws existed insuring those contributions were disclosed. The way I read it, the above action by the administration would remove that disclosure requirement.

 

[Chevy1]

Compare NRA political spending to that of Planned Parenthood and then get back to me.

Money spent toward candidates
Planned Parenthood - $38 Million
NRA - $50 Million
NRA political spending much is higher when other areas are concerned. $419 million in 2016 vs $261 in 2012. I didn't find anything anywhere near that high for Planned Parenthood.

BUT...this shouldn't be a "right vs left" issue. It's in the nation's best interest to have these donations disclosed.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...ed-100-million-amidst-pro-trump-push-in-2016/
https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/11...rms-spend-over-38-million-to-elect-democrats/
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cycle=2016&cmte=Planned+Parenthood

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

The left wants illegals to vote, busses systemic leeches to polling places every election day, scoffs at the idea of presenting a valid ID to cast a vote, but gets incensed at the thought of Americans spending money to promote candidates they like.

I strongly suggest "buses."

 

[WV-FAN]

laughable, the left screaming for accountability . . . only because trump is in office when the regulation is done away with. had the kenyan been in office, the left would be all about no regs when it comes to elections. hell, look no farther than their support of no voter identification requirements and their support of allowing illegals to vote. our forefathers have their caskets beat all to hell rolling over in their graves by now.

 

[Chevy1]

laughable, the left screaming for accountability . . . only because trump is in office when the regulation is done away with. had the kenyan been in office, the left would be all about no regs when it comes to elections. hell, look no farther than their support of no voter identification requirements and their support of allowing illegals to vote. our forefathers have their caskets beat all to hell rolling over in their graves by now.

Apparently, that Trump loyalty oath has some sort of binding clause stating you can't be against Anything Trump.

How does this change impact the 'TRUMP FIRST' crowd? Let's suppose EU countries don't want Trump back as president. Through this change, these countries can funnel $$ through AARP, Planned Parenthood or any 501c corp du jour, and up the spend against our apprentice President and perhaps flush his re-election bid down the toilet. Because of this change, no one will know that 10 European countries had thrown enough juice into the election to tilt the vote one way or another.

Gotta believe anyone buying into that "America First" BS spewed by Trump wouldn't want or need foreign countries playing in our elections.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

hell, look no farther
.

Further. Look no further.

Republicans always make me feel like a genius.

 

[WV-FAN]

Apparently, that Trump loyalty oath has some sort of binding clause stating you can't be against Anything Trump.

nah. hell, i'm opposed to him running his damn mouth like he does. you see the latest tweet on Iran? fuhktup. and, i'm all for transparency. i'm also all for tighter borders and immigration, as well as tightening up on voting and not allowing illegals and dead people to vote.

your comment goes both ways as it doesn't matter what trump does, since trumps affiliated with it, it's no good to the never trumpers, which was the point of my post.

libs are like children. all trump had to do was whatever he knew the libs would want and they'd have screamed and cried until the opposite occurred.

• tighter borders? open the borders.
• illegals out? bus them in.
• voting restrictions? let anyone that's set foot on american soil for the time it takes them to find a voting precinct vote.

 

[i am herdman]

I strongly suggest "buses."

The plural of bus is buses. A variant plural, busses, is also given in the dictionary,

Until 1961, 'busses' was the preferred plural of 'bus' in Merriam-Webster dictionaries

-----------
So, he was technically ok.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

The plural of bus is buses. A variant plural, busses, is also given in the dictionary,

Until 1961, 'busses' was the preferred plural of 'bus' in Merriam-Webster dictionaries

-----------
So, he was technically ok.

In 21st-century English, buses is the preferred plural of the noun bus. Busses appears occasionally, and dictionaries list it as a secondary spelling, but it’s been out of favor for over a century. This is true in all main varieties of English.

Hence, why I strongly suggested he not use that version.

But here's a little stronger stance against it:


That said, "busses" should not be used in the context of transportation. Most of your audience won’t know the difference, but you will give careful readers the wrong impression.

"Busses" actually refers to kissing somebody. "Buses" refers to transporting somebody in a bus.

 

[i am herdman]

In 21st-century English, buses is the preferred plural of the noun bus. Busses appears occasionally, and dictionaries list it as a secondary spelling, but it’s been out of favor for over a century. This is true in all main varieties of English.

Hence, why I strongly suggested he not use that version.

But here's a little stronger stance against it:


That said, "busses" should not be used in the context of transportation. Most of your audience won’t know the difference, but you will give careful readers the wrong impression.

"Busses" actually refers to kissing somebody. "Buses" refers to transporting somebody in a bus.

I think most of this audience knew the context.